"Truth need not be defended by thunder and fury; these are the tools of the poorly informed, adrift on an unfamiliar journey along an uncharted course to an unknown destination understood only as enlightenment". ~ Geoffrey Rapp
What is more important; what you think or how you think?
When you ask someone, "What do you think about (enter subject)?", you will always get an answer. You may or may not like the answer that you get, but you will always get some kind of answer. In almost all cases, the answer that you will receive is based upon the most recent information that the respondent has received that is in agreement with his underlying philosophical biases. An interesting experiment for you to conduct is to rather ask someone, "How do you think about (enter subject)?" You will probably have to explain what you mean by the question, but it may produce some interesting responses.
There have been several articles published recently that approach the important question of which is more important; what you think or how you think. It would be wise for you to consider the question in regard to your own positions on the important issues of today, as well as how you approach discussions with others that may not believe as you do about those same issues.
Judicial activism in Trump travel suspension case is dangerous: The federal judiciary has become a swamp, particularly the Ninth Circus.
By James Shott · Feb. 14, 2017
The recent hullabaloo over President Donald Trump’s temporary suspension of travel from seven Middle Eastern countries with ties to Islamic terrorism has dominated the early days of his administration. Trump’s action suspends entry to the country as his administration seeks better methods of vetting potential visitors to the U.S. for national security reasons. This incident has brought to the fore once again the high degree of activism in the federal judiciary.
Judicial activism involves interpreting the U.S. Constitution and the nation’s laws to achieve some non-legal, socially desirable leftist end favored by judges. Politics trumps the law.
The Washington establishment was stunned.
A political outsider with few connections in the nation’s capital, but wide national celebrity among the American people, was going to be the next president of the United States.
Washington, D.C., residents were unprepared for the wild scene that was about to unfold when the new president’s advocates—and a few detractors—poured into the city. Some compared this enormous mass of people to an invading barbarian horde pillaging Rome.
This scene may sound familiar in 2017, but it describes Andrew Jackson’s inaugural celebration in 1829. At the time, such large-scale fanfare at an inauguration was unprecedented.